This copy is for your personal non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies of Toronto Star content for distribution to colleagues, clients or customers, or inquire about permissions/licensing, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com

Two doctors — Amitabh Chauhan and Suganthan Kayilasanathan — stood in a Toronto courtroom this week during their trial on charges of sexual assault. Their names and photos have been widely circulated since the charges were first laid years ago, but outside of that courtroom, no one knows the identity of the accusers. And because of a publication ban on their identities, most people never will.

The practice of ordering a publication ban on the identities of alleged victims of sexual assault first emerged with criminal code reforms in the early 1980s and has become almost de facto in the years since.

The bans were implemented to encourage women who have been sexually assaulted to come forward and to protect them from the stigma and humiliation that would result from widespread publicity.

But thirty years on, in the Internet era where salacious stories of alleged sexual abuse are shared with millions around the world, the bans are starting to be questioned by both victims and alleged aggressors

With only one name and face to report in the media, criminal defence lawyers say the publication bans impede the presumption of innocence because their clients get convicted in the court of public opinion before their trial ever starts.

Article Continued Below

“You can ask for the accused’s name to be protected by a publication ban, but you’re not going to get it,” said Russell Silverstein, a criminal defence lawyer with experience in sexual assault cases.

“Lots of accused end up getting acquitted and their names have been out in the media, and there’s nothing we can do about it,” he said.

Media lawyer Brian Rogers worries that the bans, which should be the exception, have instead become the rule.

“Without question, this ban, like any publication ban of any part of a criminal proceeding, is something that obviously interferes with the true, full, open, public process that people rightly expect of the court system,” Rogers said.

“The question becomes whether there are ever circumstances where doing so can be justified. And in my mind, it’s always something that should need to be justified, because the openness principle should be the one that governs.”

The Victim’s Bill of Rights, a proposed criminal code reform that would expand the use of secret witnesses, worries some lawyers because it continues a shift away from this principle of openness.

When the Supreme Court heard a challenge to the publication ban law in 1988, Rogers said, it made clear that bans would only be accepted if the victim wanted one.

In civil court, openness is the rule, says Elizabeth Grace, a lawyer who specializes in cases of sexual assault and abuse. Unlike in criminal cases, she said, it is rare for victims who seek civil redress to ask that their identities are protected.

Grace explains to each of her clients that making a civil claim could expose them to media scrutiny, and most decide to go forward anyway.

Janine Benedet, a professor at the University of British Columbia’s law school, says while she applauds those women who do come forward and want to be named publicly, the bans are still essential for other women, who might have gotten pregnant, for example.

“The bans have not outlived their usefulness,” she said. “While society has changed a lot in 30 years, we aren’t all the way there yet.”

Reporting a sexual assault is still different than any other crime; one where being a victim still carries a stigma.

Hardly anyone would be ashamed of reporting their car stolen, but admitting you’ve been raped has led, in other countries, to forced marriage with your aggressor or even honour killings by relatives. Those attitudes are present in Canada as well.

Jane Doe, a woman who in the 1980s won a landmark civil case against the Toronto Police for not warning the public of a serial rapist, has been using her court-granted anonymity for over 20 years. She says that publication bans are helpful, but they don’t do what most people think.

While staying anonymous has allowed her to live a normal life after the ordeal was over, it did nothing to shield her from the traumatic experience of testifying in court.

“Its purpose is to encourage people to come forward, but it’s not working. Women are still afraid of reporting rape.”

“The media ban gives you a sliver of privacy,” she said, “but you still go through the shaming, stigma and suffering you experience in a court of law. The ban only keeps you anonymous from people who don’t know who you are.”

Family and friends read about you in the press and in court your life is put under a microscope, she explained. On the stand, she says, women who have been sexually assaulted have their judgment and lifestyle subjected to unbearable scrutiny.

“It’s an ordeal you’ll never forget and from which many women will never recover.”

The real question, Doe says, is why do women need a publication ban.

“They don’t need to be protected from the media,” she says. “They need to be protected from the process. That’s the real problem.”

More from the Toronto Star & Partners

LOADING

Copyright owned or licensed by Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or distribution of this content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Toronto Star Newspapers Limited and/or its licensors. To order copies of Toronto Star articles, please go to: www.TorontoStarReprints.com